Mills v. Poole, 1:06-cv-00842

Petitioner Richard Mills, proceeding pro se, filed third Rule 60(b) motions seeking vacatur of this Court’s judgments in two habeas/civil cases (1:11-cv-00440 and 1:06-cv-00842).
The motions were filed more than one year after entry of the challenged judgments.
Mills argued relief based on alleged misconduct or irregularity involving Judge Robert Noonan (use of a false name) and claimed due process violations, invoking Rule 60(b)(4), (5), and (6).
The State (Attorney General) opposed; the Court analyzed Rule 60(b) grounds and controlling Second Circuit and Supreme Court precedent.
The Court found Mills’ claims did not render the judgments void, were not covered by subsections (1)-(3) due to untimeliness, and did not present the extraordinary circumstances required under Rule 60(b)(6).
The motions to vacate were denied, certificates of appealability were denied, and in forma pauperis status for appeal was denied as not taken in good faith.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Timeliness under Rule 60(b)(1)-(3)	Mills claimed error/misconduct warranting relief	State argued motions were untimely (filed >1 year) and thus subsections (1)-(3) inapplicable	Denied — motions untimely; subsections (1)-(3) do not apply per Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1)
Void judgment under Rule 60(b)(4)	Alleged judge used a false name; due process violation	State: allegation, even if true, does not show lack of jurisdiction or due process defect making judgment void	Denied — judgment not void; Rule 60(b)(4) inapplicable (court had jurisdiction and no qualifying due process defect)
Relief under Rule 60(b)(5)	Mills argued other equitable bases for vacatur	State: judgments were not satisfied, based on earlier reversed judgments, nor executory matters warranting (5) relief	Denied — Rule 60(b)(5) inapplicable; prior dismissal not executory and left no future adjudication open
Extraordinary circumstances under Rule 60(b)(6)	Mills invoked Marrero Pichardo, Liljeberg, Buck as analogous extraordinary circumstances	State: those precedents are fact-bound, distinguishable, and Mills’ assertions do not rise to that level	Denied — no extraordinary circumstances shown to justify relief under (6); precedent distinguished

Grace v. Bank Leumi Trust Co., 443 F.3d 180 (2d Cir.) (definition of when a judgment is void under Rule 60(b)(4))
Nemaizer v. Baker, 793 F.2d 58 (2d Cir. 1986) (Rule 60(b)(6) requires extraordinary circumstances for relief)
Tapper v. Hearn, 833 F.3d 166 (2d Cir. 2016) (Rule 60(b)(5) analysis and executory-dismissal discussion)
Marrero Pichardo v. Ashcroft, 374 F.3d 46 (2d Cir. 2004) (reopening required where change in law and facts produced manifest injustice)
Liljeberg v. Health Servs. Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847 (1988) (judicial disqualification can require vacatur when statutory disqualification exists)
Buck v. Davis, 137 S. Ct. 759 (2017) (extraordinary Rule 60(b)(6) relief where race-based expert testimony undermined death sentence)
Moskowitz v. Coscette, [citation="51 F. App'x 37"] (2d Cir.) (attorney conflicts or failures not necessarily meeting "extraordinary circumstances" threshold)
Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438 (1962) (standard for granting in forma pauperis on appeal)